MONOGRAPH 40 volume 1

41 Research monograph 40 2. Findings considered by the court to be of low objective seriousness and greater than one-third (36.9%, n=185) were considered to be of medium objective seriousness. Almost 9% (n=43) of all principal environmental offences dealt with by the LEC in the study period were grave enough to be judged as of “high” objective seriousness. Figure 2: Objective seriousness of environmental planning and protection offences in the LEC — 2000 to 2015 (principal offence only) 2.1.3 Maximum penalties In any given case, the CSP Act , the Fines Act 1996, the common law and the statute creating the specific environmental offence provide the framework within which a court determines the sentence to be imposed. The CSP Act sets out various penalty options for the courts. The various environmental planning and protection Acts, including the POEO Act and the EPA Act , set out the maximum penalties for each proven offence. In a recent LEC case involving pollute waters offences, Moore J made the following points on the consideration of “the maximum penalty” as an objective factor: 325 • maximum penalties change and offenders may be exposed to significantly increased financial penalties than previous offenders convicted of the same offence • where a penalty is increased, “it does not follow that there is assumed to be some automatic multiplier applied to the penalty imposed reflecting the rate of increase in the maximum penalties in the statute” 326 • the increase in the maximum available penalty reflects the “legislature’s understanding … of contemporary community standards concerning the offences involved” 327 • at the macro level, the maximum penalty is significant in determining the objective seriousness of the offence and the seriousness with which the offence charged is viewed 328 • the size of the penalty also “indicates the gravity of the offence as perceived by the community” 329 • given changes in the maximum penalty over time, caution needs to be exercised in examining sentencing information, particularly where it applies to a previous sentencing regime. Medium 36.9% Low 54.5% High 8.6% 325 EPA v Hunter Water Corp [2016] NSWLEC 76 at [57]–[62] . 326 ibid, citing Morrison v Defence Maritime Services Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLEC 421 per Biscoe J at [60]. 327 ibid, citing EPA v Timber Industries Ltd [2001] NSWLEC 25 per Pearlman J at [33]. 328 ibid, citing Plath v Rawson [2009] NSWLEC 178 per Preston CJ of the LEC at [57] and Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v EPA (1993) 32 NSWLR 683 per Kirby P at 698. 329 ibid, citing Camilleri’s Stock Feeds Pty Ltd v EPA .